During the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Bill vote, King had an opportunity to vote for an amendment introduced by Rep. Bernie Thompson "that would have increased the department's authorized funding to $40.8 billion was defeated on a 16-13 party-line vote. The amendment would have increased funding levels across several Homeland Security accounts, including money for rail and mass transit security, grants for first responders, beefed-up biological and chemical countermeasures, more Customs and Border Protection agents, more radiation monitors at U.S. seaports and an acceleration of the Coast Guard's Deepwater modernization program. "
An amendment by Rep. James Langevin, "would have added $374 million for the department to buy radiation detection equipment for seaports was also defeated by a 16-13 party-line vote. Langevin said the department will not deploy next-generation detectors to all U.S. seaports until 2013, but his amendment would allow it to be done by the end of fiscal 2007."
And Rep. Markey's amendment "would have required the Transportation Security Administration to ensure that all cargo on commercial airplanes is inspected within three years."
Each amendment was opposed by Peter King.
Does anyone see why these measures should have been opposed?
Here is King's reasoning...
"Homeland Security Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., opposed the [Thompson] amendment, saying it would jeopardize the credibility of the committee because the funding level was unrealistic. "To be taken seriously as a committee, I believe we should set realistic numbers,"
Realistic?
If King is so adament about "Homeland Security" then he should be first in line to increase funding.
King certainly had no problem increasing funding for Bush's Iraq War.
The budget estimate for the Bush-Iraq War for this year is $101.8 billion.
In 2005 the cost was $87.3 billion.
That's a $14.5 billion increase.
King voted for that increase and each supplemental spending bill presented for the war.
In 2004 the cost of the war was $77.3 billion and in 2003, $51 billion.
According to the Congressional Research Service via the Washington Post "Even if a gradual troop withdrawal begins this year, war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to rise by an additional $371 billion during the phaseout, the report said, citing a Congressional Budget Office study. When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War."
Now this isn't about cutting funds that provide equiptment and supplies to our soldiers fighting, this is about being "realistic"about what we need to do for our own security.
So far we have seen half-assed measures coming from King's committee and the republican congress.
We have even seen funding for the Department of Homeland Security CUT by King's votes which translated into cuts for the NY area.
And don't be surpised if DHS funding takes another hit when Bush decides to go to war with Iran. And of course don't be suprised that Peter King will be right there lined up behind George W. Bush.
The question we need to ask is which "Homeland" King is more interested in seeing secure, Iraq or the United States
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Take Off, You Hoser! Redux
King went to the Canadian border and learned a little about geography..
From Buffalo Pundit:
"Copter Tour Gives Sense of Region’s Vulnerability
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King toured WNY (Western New York) with Tom Reynolds, Niagara County Sheriff Tim Beilein, and Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard.
In a Black Hawk helicopter, because that’s the way a poseur does it.
Representative King discovered that Niagara Falls and Canada are very close to Buffalo and WNY:
“To actually see it from the air, you realize just how close it all is,” King said of the international bridges, Niagara Falls tourist attractions, professional sports venues and infrastructure.
Thanks for stopping by, Congressmen."
From Buffalo News...
"You don't say
Rep. Peter King of Long Island, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, was in town a week ago for a helicopter tour intended to highlight the area's potential terror targets.
The Republican also got a valuable geography lesson: Buffalo is near Canada.
"To actually see it from the air, you realize just how close it all is," King said of the international crossings, tourist sites and other venues he saw, The News reported last Saturday.
The BuffaloPundit Web log sarcastically noted King's discovery, which came at the side of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence.
"Thanks for stopping by, congressmen," Pundit wrote.
Off Main Street would like to pass along a few other tidbits that might be news to King:
• Buffalo is the home of the chicken wing, often called the buffalo wing.
• We have the only NFL team that plays its home games in New York State.
• In the winter, we get a bit of snow. But it melts in the spring.
• That carbonated beverage you call "soda?" We call it "pop."
From Buffalo Pundit:
"Copter Tour Gives Sense of Region’s Vulnerability
Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King toured WNY (Western New York) with Tom Reynolds, Niagara County Sheriff Tim Beilein, and Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard.
In a Black Hawk helicopter, because that’s the way a poseur does it.
Representative King discovered that Niagara Falls and Canada are very close to Buffalo and WNY:
“To actually see it from the air, you realize just how close it all is,” King said of the international bridges, Niagara Falls tourist attractions, professional sports venues and infrastructure.
Thanks for stopping by, Congressmen."
From Buffalo News...
"You don't say
Rep. Peter King of Long Island, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, was in town a week ago for a helicopter tour intended to highlight the area's potential terror targets.
The Republican also got a valuable geography lesson: Buffalo is near Canada.
"To actually see it from the air, you realize just how close it all is," King said of the international crossings, tourist sites and other venues he saw, The News reported last Saturday.
The BuffaloPundit Web log sarcastically noted King's discovery, which came at the side of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence.
"Thanks for stopping by, congressmen," Pundit wrote.
Off Main Street would like to pass along a few other tidbits that might be news to King:
• Buffalo is the home of the chicken wing, often called the buffalo wing.
• We have the only NFL team that plays its home games in New York State.
• In the winter, we get a bit of snow. But it melts in the spring.
• That carbonated beverage you call "soda?" We call it "pop."
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
King Votes To Codify Bigotry (Again)
King voted to codify bigotry in our Constitution. Thankfully the vote failed to reach the 3/4 needed to pass. HJ RES 88 "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage" is another push to make "marriage" only between a man and a woman."Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.
We covered this same thing two years ago.
The proponents of this amendment are pseudo-intellectuals who use the buffet-style version of history and religion. They take what they like and ignore the rest.
They speaks of “traditional marriage” as if marriage today reflects any tradition older than 50 years. Replace the word “inter-racial” for “gay” and you have what bigots used to protect “traditional” marriage less than 50 years ago. Go back 100 years and marriages for money, business and convenience were the tradition. Go further back and families practically sold their young daughters. Marriage strictly for love the way we have it today is a fairly new tradition.
Rep. Gingrey started the argument for the amendment with this gem "This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion, but it has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman."
The supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment talk about "traditional marriage." Thy want to use THEIR bible and THEIR religion to dictate laws. King considers himself a devout catholic so he must agree with his buddies when it comes to the bible.
Let's talk about the "traditional marriage" that they so badly want. It's more than just a man and a woman... there is so much more to the old "traditions." How about going back to the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which says : "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, 'I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,' And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity,' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, became he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
Wow! Death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin at marriage? How much more "traditional" can you get?
How about other "traditonal" marriages? Not too long ago brides were considered chattel. Then you have the arranged marriages where the bride and groom have never met.
What kind of "traditional" marriage does King support?
We have too long codified bigtry with the miscegenation laws that forbade different "races" to marry. Would Peter King agree with those laws? So why would he seek to change the constitution to create a new bigotry set in law?
The so-called activist judges this amendment si supposed to circumvent are protecting society from uninformed moralists who don’t believe in the equal protection under the law but seek a theocratic government based on their own misinterpretation of religion.
Roll Call Vote 378 on HJ RES 88
Peter King - YES.
Aren't you glad the congress fixed all the countries problems already and can concentrate on this?
We covered this same thing two years ago.
The proponents of this amendment are pseudo-intellectuals who use the buffet-style version of history and religion. They take what they like and ignore the rest.
They speaks of “traditional marriage” as if marriage today reflects any tradition older than 50 years. Replace the word “inter-racial” for “gay” and you have what bigots used to protect “traditional” marriage less than 50 years ago. Go back 100 years and marriages for money, business and convenience were the tradition. Go further back and families practically sold their young daughters. Marriage strictly for love the way we have it today is a fairly new tradition.
Rep. Gingrey started the argument for the amendment with this gem "This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with exclusion, but it has everything to do with protecting the traditional and historical definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman."
The supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment talk about "traditional marriage." Thy want to use THEIR bible and THEIR religion to dictate laws. King considers himself a devout catholic so he must agree with his buddies when it comes to the bible.
Let's talk about the "traditional marriage" that they so badly want. It's more than just a man and a woman... there is so much more to the old "traditions." How about going back to the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which says : "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, 'I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,' And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity,' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, became he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
Wow! Death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin at marriage? How much more "traditional" can you get?
How about other "traditonal" marriages? Not too long ago brides were considered chattel. Then you have the arranged marriages where the bride and groom have never met.
What kind of "traditional" marriage does King support?
We have too long codified bigtry with the miscegenation laws that forbade different "races" to marry. Would Peter King agree with those laws? So why would he seek to change the constitution to create a new bigotry set in law?
The so-called activist judges this amendment si supposed to circumvent are protecting society from uninformed moralists who don’t believe in the equal protection under the law but seek a theocratic government based on their own misinterpretation of religion.
Roll Call Vote 378 on HJ RES 88
Peter King - YES.
Aren't you glad the congress fixed all the countries problems already and can concentrate on this?
Take Off, You Hoser! King Heads to Canada
King is trekking to the Great White North to check out th elongest border with the US.
The Toronto Star reports "There are two borders," King said yesterday. "Obviously 85 per cent of illegal immigration comes from the southern border (with Mexico), but I also think we should not ignore the Canadian border, especially in view of the terrorist ring that was broken up in Canada."
But we reported this back in May "When it comes to apprehension of non-Mexicans entering the US, "the Border Patrol reported capturing a total of 946 persons from the seven nations attempting to enter illegally. However, only 320 of those were caught at the Mexican border, where the ad's sponsors want to build a fence. Nearly twice as many were caught coming in from Canada and other points. In all, 472 were apprehended at the Canadian border, and 154 were apprehended in the Miami, New Orleans and Puerto Rico regions of the Border Patrol."
The Canadians are very vigilent at the border and thier security measures are very good. King says "I think it's a disproportionate number of Al Qaeda in Canada because of their very liberal immigration laws, because of how political asylum is granted so easily,"
BUT, King is still giving the longest border a bye "King said he hadn't decided whether he supports a delay in strict new border identification measures that the Senate is pushing. While he doesn't think National Guard troops are necessary at the Canadian border, he supports investigating the idea of a fence, whether it's an actual barrier or a virtual wall with sensors and other equipment.
Asked yesterday if the House legislation needs to be amended in some way to address the Canadian border, King said: "I don't want to prejudge."
"I wouldn't say so at this time, but I want to see myself and talk to the people at the border."
The Toronto Star reports "There are two borders," King said yesterday. "Obviously 85 per cent of illegal immigration comes from the southern border (with Mexico), but I also think we should not ignore the Canadian border, especially in view of the terrorist ring that was broken up in Canada."
But we reported this back in May "When it comes to apprehension of non-Mexicans entering the US, "the Border Patrol reported capturing a total of 946 persons from the seven nations attempting to enter illegally. However, only 320 of those were caught at the Mexican border, where the ad's sponsors want to build a fence. Nearly twice as many were caught coming in from Canada and other points. In all, 472 were apprehended at the Canadian border, and 154 were apprehended in the Miami, New Orleans and Puerto Rico regions of the Border Patrol."
The Canadians are very vigilent at the border and thier security measures are very good. King says "I think it's a disproportionate number of Al Qaeda in Canada because of their very liberal immigration laws, because of how political asylum is granted so easily,"
BUT, King is still giving the longest border a bye "King said he hadn't decided whether he supports a delay in strict new border identification measures that the Senate is pushing. While he doesn't think National Guard troops are necessary at the Canadian border, he supports investigating the idea of a fence, whether it's an actual barrier or a virtual wall with sensors and other equipment.
Asked yesterday if the House legislation needs to be amended in some way to address the Canadian border, King said: "I don't want to prejudge."
"I wouldn't say so at this time, but I want to see myself and talk to the people at the border."
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
More Fundraising Q2 2006 and Mejias numbers
Dave Mejias got a late start declaring his candidacy in early June. Since then he has done fairly well with fundraising.
Total Contributions - $210,406.84
Total Expenditures - $7,000
Cash on Hand - $228,506.84
Contributions from Individuals - $195,711.00
Contributions from PACs - $14,695.84
In one month, Mejias raised almost as much as King has since April:
King - $248,527
Mejias - $210,406.84
Not a bad start at all.
Of course, Mejias still needs more money and you can contribute to the campaign through Act- Blue.
In Newsday today, Mejias says "A lot of people are interested in this race.. People want to take back Congress because they don't like the direction our country is going. ... We're going to be raising a lot of money and [King] should be worried."
King says "I take every race seriously; that said, I've been outspent two to one and four to one and I always win... I'm very confident going in, but I take every race seriously."
First, King doesn't campaign and looking at past campaign filings, spends very little money on his campaigns compared to what he raises. We'll get more into that later.
When King says he has been "outspent," he's only talking about 1992 when he was first elected.
In that race against Steve Orlins, Orlins had $1,127,239 and King had $263,345.
That was the first and last time he was "outspent."
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, these are the numbers:
1994:
King - $516,548
Grill - $415, 561
1996:
King - $655,058
LaMagna - $425,561
1998:
King - $278,908 (raised $547,910)
Langberg - $157,934
2000:
King - $455,110 (raised $791,415)
LaMagna - $285,966
2002:
King - $468,474 (raised $599,034)
Finz - $137,472
2004:
King - $536,345 (raised $610,412)
Mathies - $212,580
Since 1998, King has raised more than he has spent and outspent each opponent almost 2-1. In 1994 and 1996 King outspent both opponents.
So where is he being outspent so much as he says?
Just one time in 1992 and he barely won that race in a republican-dominated district.
Total Contributions - $210,406.84
Total Expenditures - $7,000
Cash on Hand - $228,506.84
Contributions from Individuals - $195,711.00
Contributions from PACs - $14,695.84
In one month, Mejias raised almost as much as King has since April:
King - $248,527
Mejias - $210,406.84
Not a bad start at all.
Of course, Mejias still needs more money and you can contribute to the campaign through Act- Blue.
In Newsday today, Mejias says "A lot of people are interested in this race.. People want to take back Congress because they don't like the direction our country is going. ... We're going to be raising a lot of money and [King] should be worried."
King says "I take every race seriously; that said, I've been outspent two to one and four to one and I always win... I'm very confident going in, but I take every race seriously."
First, King doesn't campaign and looking at past campaign filings, spends very little money on his campaigns compared to what he raises. We'll get more into that later.
When King says he has been "outspent," he's only talking about 1992 when he was first elected.
In that race against Steve Orlins, Orlins had $1,127,239 and King had $263,345.
That was the first and last time he was "outspent."
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, these are the numbers:
1994:
King - $516,548
Grill - $415, 561
1996:
King - $655,058
LaMagna - $425,561
1998:
King - $278,908 (raised $547,910)
Langberg - $157,934
2000:
King - $455,110 (raised $791,415)
LaMagna - $285,966
2002:
King - $468,474 (raised $599,034)
Finz - $137,472
2004:
King - $536,345 (raised $610,412)
Mathies - $212,580
Since 1998, King has raised more than he has spent and outspent each opponent almost 2-1. In 1994 and 1996 King outspent both opponents.
So where is he being outspent so much as he says?
Just one time in 1992 and he barely won that race in a republican-dominated district.
King Fundraising 2nd Quarter '06
King continues to rake on the dough. We'll have more on what people get for giving but for now here are the numbers...
Total Contributions - $248,527
Total Expenditures - $26,099.31
Cash on Hand - $1,494,329.65
Contributions from Individuals - $154,027
Contributions from PACs - $94,500
The cash on hand number looks daunting but King doesn't spend much on campaigning so he has alot left over from election cycle to election cycle.
Here are a few of his contributors this quarter:
GE PAC - $500.00
AMEX - $5000.00
Pfizer PAC - $1000.00
Boeing - $1000.00
Honeywell - $1000.00
Morgan Stanley - $1000.00
L-3 Communications - $2000.00
American Crystal Sugar - $2000.00
Keyspan - $1000.00
Unisys - $5000.00
AT&T - $2000.00
Verizon - $1000.00
Where is King spending his campaign contributions?
Bar Harbor Gallery - $1228.48
Cablevision - $346.46
Cathy Blaney and Associates - $8481.06 (Fundraising and Consulting firm)
Evergreen Printing - $3391.05
Ford Motor Credit - $1515 (Car Payments????)
Massapequa Park Postmaster - $1950.00
Rogers Development Corp. - $1416.54 (Real Estate)
Rudy's A-1 Auto Shop - $500.00
Spencer Tucker - $1956.40 (Photographer)
Total Contributions - $248,527
Total Expenditures - $26,099.31
Cash on Hand - $1,494,329.65
Contributions from Individuals - $154,027
Contributions from PACs - $94,500
The cash on hand number looks daunting but King doesn't spend much on campaigning so he has alot left over from election cycle to election cycle.
Here are a few of his contributors this quarter:
GE PAC - $500.00
AMEX - $5000.00
Pfizer PAC - $1000.00
Boeing - $1000.00
Honeywell - $1000.00
Morgan Stanley - $1000.00
L-3 Communications - $2000.00
American Crystal Sugar - $2000.00
Keyspan - $1000.00
Unisys - $5000.00
AT&T - $2000.00
Verizon - $1000.00
Where is King spending his campaign contributions?
Bar Harbor Gallery - $1228.48
Cablevision - $346.46
Cathy Blaney and Associates - $8481.06 (Fundraising and Consulting firm)
Evergreen Printing - $3391.05
Ford Motor Credit - $1515 (Car Payments????)
Massapequa Park Postmaster - $1950.00
Rogers Development Corp. - $1416.54 (Real Estate)
Rudy's A-1 Auto Shop - $500.00
Spencer Tucker - $1956.40 (Photographer)
Thursday, July 13, 2006
From a Roar to a Whimper- King and the NY Daily News
When the New York Times ran the story about the financial tracking program, King was all over them in every media outlet. His cry of "Treason!" resonated with the knuckle-dragging right.
King is quoted as saying "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous." He wrote a letter to Attorney General Gonzalez asking for an investigation.
King said in Newsday "I intellectually believe The New York Times can be prosecuted ... I say let The New York Times spend the next two weeks saying why they shouldn't be. It's a two-for-one shot for me."
And he said on Fox News "The time has come for the American people to realize, and the New York Times to realize, we’re at war and they can’t be on their own deciding what to declassify, what to release. If Congress wants to work on this privately, that’s one thing. But for them to, on their own, for the editor of the New York Times to say that he decides it’s in the national interest -- no one elected them to anything."
Since his tirades against the Times for a story about a program that was public knowledge, the New York Daily News published a story about planned terror attacks against NYC. The News in its own story admitted that the investigation was "ongoing" and that suspects were "still at large."
We wondered if King would start screaming "TREASON!" and demand an investigation. And we weren't the only ones.
There were a few days of silence and then King emerges to tell the LA Times "It would have been better if this had not been disclosed" publicly, so as not to disrupt the investigation and intelligence-gathering effort."
What strong words of condemnation.
No letter to the Attorney General?
No calls for the arrest and prosecution of the writers and editors?
Of course not, this story helps bolster Bush's anti-terror poll numbers. Why bite the hand that feeds better poll numbers?
Here is proof that King lacks principles.
King is quoted as saying "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous." He wrote a letter to Attorney General Gonzalez asking for an investigation.
King said in Newsday "I intellectually believe The New York Times can be prosecuted ... I say let The New York Times spend the next two weeks saying why they shouldn't be. It's a two-for-one shot for me."
And he said on Fox News "The time has come for the American people to realize, and the New York Times to realize, we’re at war and they can’t be on their own deciding what to declassify, what to release. If Congress wants to work on this privately, that’s one thing. But for them to, on their own, for the editor of the New York Times to say that he decides it’s in the national interest -- no one elected them to anything."
Since his tirades against the Times for a story about a program that was public knowledge, the New York Daily News published a story about planned terror attacks against NYC. The News in its own story admitted that the investigation was "ongoing" and that suspects were "still at large."
We wondered if King would start screaming "TREASON!" and demand an investigation. And we weren't the only ones.
There were a few days of silence and then King emerges to tell the LA Times "It would have been better if this had not been disclosed" publicly, so as not to disrupt the investigation and intelligence-gathering effort."
What strong words of condemnation.
No letter to the Attorney General?
No calls for the arrest and prosecution of the writers and editors?
Of course not, this story helps bolster Bush's anti-terror poll numbers. Why bite the hand that feeds better poll numbers?
Here is proof that King lacks principles.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
New York Times Protest Follies
Tuesday at 5pm saw a 100 person protest in front of the Times building. King wasn't there but like-minded folks were.
I LOVE this guy...
Do you see the last line?
"Times, why don't you publish a NYC Subway system map for AL-Qaeda?"
For readers outside NYC, let me say that the Metropolitan Transit Authority which runs the NYC subway plus other commuter rail has been publishing detailed maps and timetables of the system since it was built.
And if "AL-Qaeda" can't get to the city to get a copy, they can go online and print out an updated (March 2006) version of the system map. Basically the MTA has been providing aid and comfort to the enemy!
Bless this protesters heart, he really did try.
I LOVE this guy...
Do you see the last line?
"Times, why don't you publish a NYC Subway system map for AL-Qaeda?"
For readers outside NYC, let me say that the Metropolitan Transit Authority which runs the NYC subway plus other commuter rail has been publishing detailed maps and timetables of the system since it was built.
And if "AL-Qaeda" can't get to the city to get a copy, they can go online and print out an updated (March 2006) version of the system map. Basically the MTA has been providing aid and comfort to the enemy!
Bless this protesters heart, he really did try.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Powerless Peter Admits To It
Remember when King said regarding his ascension to chairman of the Homeland Security Commitee "It has to be good for New York if I do my job because I strongly believe that all funding for homeland security has to be based on threat..... So to that extent, New York will be represented at the highest levels of the homeland security table."
Well, King now admits "Who is chairman or not doesn't matter to these bureaucrats,"
How about that.
Well, King now admits "Who is chairman or not doesn't matter to these bureaucrats,"
How about that.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
More Questions About Hypocrisy
Yesterday we asked why no calls of treason for the NY Daily News and we weren't the only ones asking....
Crooks and Liars calls the Daily News...
"Where’s the Outrage Over the Daily News Bomb Tunnel Story?
I called the NY Daily News columnist, ALLISON GENDAR, who was one of the journalists that broke this story today:
The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.
The News has learned that at the request of U.S. officials, authorities in Beirut arrested one of the alleged conspirators, identified as Amir Andalousli, in recent months. Agents were scrambling yesterday to try to nab other suspects, sources said. They didn’t indicate how many people were the target of the international dragnet but said they were scattered all over the world. "This is an ongoing operation," one source said.
I knew it was going to be a hectic day in the newsroom, but I asked her if she thought that the Daily News would be attacked like the NY Times was since this is still an ongoing investigation and her paper printed the story anyway. She quickly said she had to go, but said I could call back. Where is the outrage from the administration and the right wing bloggers over The Daily News possibly compromising an ongoing investigation? I don’t wish to cause the NY Daily News problems, but you can see where I’m headed here. It sure looks like the government leaked this story to The Daily News to make itself look good. Crawfordslist feels the same way. The NY Times was set up by the administration and is still being attacked over idiotic stories. This NY Daily News Story is more proof of that. I’ll have more after I contact The Daily News again."
Craig Crawford over at Crawfordslist asks the question too..
"The Holland Tunnel Is Leaking
Will White Housers get as upset at the New York Daily News for outing the Holland Tunnel bomb plot as they did at The New York Times for reporting the details of anti-terrorist bank surveillance? Maybe not, because this time it looks like the government itself leaked to NYDN about an “ongoing investigation” into a terrorist plot to blow up the Manhattan tunnel and flood the city.
Crooks and Liars calls the Daily News...
"Where’s the Outrage Over the Daily News Bomb Tunnel Story?
I called the NY Daily News columnist, ALLISON GENDAR, who was one of the journalists that broke this story today:
The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.
The News has learned that at the request of U.S. officials, authorities in Beirut arrested one of the alleged conspirators, identified as Amir Andalousli, in recent months. Agents were scrambling yesterday to try to nab other suspects, sources said. They didn’t indicate how many people were the target of the international dragnet but said they were scattered all over the world. "This is an ongoing operation," one source said.
I knew it was going to be a hectic day in the newsroom, but I asked her if she thought that the Daily News would be attacked like the NY Times was since this is still an ongoing investigation and her paper printed the story anyway. She quickly said she had to go, but said I could call back. Where is the outrage from the administration and the right wing bloggers over The Daily News possibly compromising an ongoing investigation? I don’t wish to cause the NY Daily News problems, but you can see where I’m headed here. It sure looks like the government leaked this story to The Daily News to make itself look good. Crawfordslist feels the same way. The NY Times was set up by the administration and is still being attacked over idiotic stories. This NY Daily News Story is more proof of that. I’ll have more after I contact The Daily News again."
Craig Crawford over at Crawfordslist asks the question too..
"The Holland Tunnel Is Leaking
Will White Housers get as upset at the New York Daily News for outing the Holland Tunnel bomb plot as they did at The New York Times for reporting the details of anti-terrorist bank surveillance? Maybe not, because this time it looks like the government itself leaked to NYDN about an “ongoing investigation” into a terrorist plot to blow up the Manhattan tunnel and flood the city.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Selective Outrage, Big Hypocrisy.
When is a leak a good leak?
When it helps the Bush administration.
That's why King hasn't called for an investigation into the New York Daily News for disclosing a terror plot involving the tunnels leading to Manhattan.
The story cites unnamed officials and says that the investigation is ongoing. "The News has learned that at the request of U.S. officials, authorities in Beirut arrested one of the alleged conspirators, identified as Amir Andalousli, in recent months. Agents were scrambling yesterday to try to nab other suspects, sources said.
"This is an ongoing operation," one source said.
"FBI and New York City Police Department officials would not comment yesterday about the investigation, which has been kept under wraps for months."
So the News exposed an ongoing investigation where more suspects are sought and King hasn't called this treason yet?
The Associated Press story also said that this investigation was still ongoing "A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said investigators believe that an attack on a PATH tunnel, unlike the Holland Tunnel, could have achieved that goal. The official said the suspects, five of whom remained at large, hoped to inflict damage on the U.S. economy."
Why doesn't this get attacked by King? The NYTimes got slammed for doing a story on the terror financial transactions that was known by the public already.
All King had to say to Newsday was "I can confirm that for the last nine to 10 months I have been aware of a plot to attack the New York transit system and Lower Manhattan,"
King hasn't gone after the Daily News for exposing an ongoing terror plot investigation because stopping terror plots refelcts well on Bush.
King and other Bush supporters will point to this and say "See, Bush is handling anti-terrorism very well." But the Times story didn't reflect well on Bush and in Kings eyes deserved to be attacked.
We're not calling for the Daily News to be charged with treason, we're just looking for King to have some consistancy and principles.
And still, King still has his own leak to deal with.
When it helps the Bush administration.
That's why King hasn't called for an investigation into the New York Daily News for disclosing a terror plot involving the tunnels leading to Manhattan.
The story cites unnamed officials and says that the investigation is ongoing. "The News has learned that at the request of U.S. officials, authorities in Beirut arrested one of the alleged conspirators, identified as Amir Andalousli, in recent months. Agents were scrambling yesterday to try to nab other suspects, sources said.
"This is an ongoing operation," one source said.
"FBI and New York City Police Department officials would not comment yesterday about the investigation, which has been kept under wraps for months."
So the News exposed an ongoing investigation where more suspects are sought and King hasn't called this treason yet?
The Associated Press story also said that this investigation was still ongoing "A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said investigators believe that an attack on a PATH tunnel, unlike the Holland Tunnel, could have achieved that goal. The official said the suspects, five of whom remained at large, hoped to inflict damage on the U.S. economy."
Why doesn't this get attacked by King? The NYTimes got slammed for doing a story on the terror financial transactions that was known by the public already.
All King had to say to Newsday was "I can confirm that for the last nine to 10 months I have been aware of a plot to attack the New York transit system and Lower Manhattan,"
King hasn't gone after the Daily News for exposing an ongoing terror plot investigation because stopping terror plots refelcts well on Bush.
King and other Bush supporters will point to this and say "See, Bush is handling anti-terrorism very well." But the Times story didn't reflect well on Bush and in Kings eyes deserved to be attacked.
We're not calling for the Daily News to be charged with treason, we're just looking for King to have some consistancy and principles.
And still, King still has his own leak to deal with.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Caught in Another Fabrication
King just likes to make things up. This time it's about the NYTimes story.
From Media Matters....
"When asked by Matthews whether the program is "illegal," King claimed that "[e]ven The New York Times, in this story last Friday [June 23], has never suggested this was illegal anyway." He later added: "I don't believe The New York Times very often, but in this case, they are the ones who are the critics of the Bush administration, and even they are acknowledging that it's legal."
Yet in a June 25 letter sent to readers who responded to the June 23 Times story, Keller stated that "[i]t's not our [the Times'] job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the [June 23] story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case." He also stated that "some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and ... some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence," adding that the Times has not "identified any serious abuses of privacy so far." Further, in a June 28 weblog post describing an interview with Keller, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote:
He [Keller] acknowledged, as did the Times article, that there was no clear evidence that the banking program was illegal. But, he said, "there were officials who talked to us who were uncomfortable with the legality of this program, and others who were uncomfortable with the sense that what started as a temporary program had acquired a kind of permanence.["]
Additionally, as Media Matters noted, the June 23 Times article reported that L. Richard Fischer, "a Washington lawyer who wrote a book on banking privacy and is regarded as a leading expert in the field," expressed concerns about the program:
Such a program, he [Fischer] said, appears to do an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation.
''There has to be some due process,'' Mr. Fischer said. ''At an absolute minimum, it strikes me as inappropriate.'"
There's more at www.mediamatters.org
From Media Matters....
"When asked by Matthews whether the program is "illegal," King claimed that "[e]ven The New York Times, in this story last Friday [June 23], has never suggested this was illegal anyway." He later added: "I don't believe The New York Times very often, but in this case, they are the ones who are the critics of the Bush administration, and even they are acknowledging that it's legal."
Yet in a June 25 letter sent to readers who responded to the June 23 Times story, Keller stated that "[i]t's not our [the Times'] job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the [June 23] story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case." He also stated that "some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and ... some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence," adding that the Times has not "identified any serious abuses of privacy so far." Further, in a June 28 weblog post describing an interview with Keller, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote:
He [Keller] acknowledged, as did the Times article, that there was no clear evidence that the banking program was illegal. But, he said, "there were officials who talked to us who were uncomfortable with the legality of this program, and others who were uncomfortable with the sense that what started as a temporary program had acquired a kind of permanence.["]
Additionally, as Media Matters noted, the June 23 Times article reported that L. Richard Fischer, "a Washington lawyer who wrote a book on banking privacy and is regarded as a leading expert in the field," expressed concerns about the program:
Such a program, he [Fischer] said, appears to do an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation.
''There has to be some due process,'' Mr. Fischer said. ''At an absolute minimum, it strikes me as inappropriate.'"
There's more at www.mediamatters.org
Kings Office Gets a Phone Call
Casey from Democracy Cell Project placed a call to Kings office to get some answers....
"I've been accused of being like a dog with a bone when I get on an issue. I can live with that. Proudly. And I am sure some will accuse me of that with my follow-up to Peter King's remarks about what constitutes treasonous behavior, a capitol crime, in this day and age. Again, I will live with that. Proudly.
In my previous post, I stated that enquiring minds want to know if Congressman King was including Karl Rove and Lewis Libby in his remarks about leaking information in wartime being a treasonous act.
So I called his office. Twice so far. I posted the first converstion on the thread of my first post.
The rest is available at www.democracycellproject.net
"I've been accused of being like a dog with a bone when I get on an issue. I can live with that. Proudly. And I am sure some will accuse me of that with my follow-up to Peter King's remarks about what constitutes treasonous behavior, a capitol crime, in this day and age. Again, I will live with that. Proudly.
In my previous post, I stated that enquiring minds want to know if Congressman King was including Karl Rove and Lewis Libby in his remarks about leaking information in wartime being a treasonous act.
So I called his office. Twice so far. I posted the first converstion on the thread of my first post.
The rest is available at www.democracycellproject.net
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
The Ire of Eire: King MIA for Immigration Reform Lobbying
For years, King has been Irelands best friend in the US Congress, so much so that Sen. John McCain once said of King "Indeed, the only ‘Republican’ organization I have ever noticed Mr. King represent is the Irish Republican Army."
During the 80's and 90's, King was involved with the Irish Immigration Reform Movement (IIRM) which among other things concerned itself with helping legalize Irish immigrants. Fast-forward to today and the current incarnation of the IIRM, Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) went to Washington to lobby Congress on the immigration reform bill last week and King who would in the past bend over backward for the Irish was a no-show. According to the Irish Echo, when a large group from the ILIR including prominent Irish politicans went to DC on June 28th, "ILIR chairman, Niall O'Dowd, also criticized Rep. King. Meetings with 87 legislators had been arranged in advance of the morning's lobbying effort, he said. The only one who hadn't turned up, he said, was Congressman King."
King's new take on legalizing the Irish is far from where he was before. King says now "If it's wrong for a Muslim to be living illegally on Atlantic Avenue, you can't make a distinction between that and an Irish person."
In the past, King fully supported and did all he could to help illegal Irish immigrants. But we all know he is willing to throw anyone under the bus to help himself.
Kelly Fincham, director of ILIR tells the Rockland Journal News "There's still room for him to be a friend of the Irish,"
He will be a friend of the Irish again when he needs them politically.
During the 80's and 90's, King was involved with the Irish Immigration Reform Movement (IIRM) which among other things concerned itself with helping legalize Irish immigrants. Fast-forward to today and the current incarnation of the IIRM, Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform (ILIR) went to Washington to lobby Congress on the immigration reform bill last week and King who would in the past bend over backward for the Irish was a no-show. According to the Irish Echo, when a large group from the ILIR including prominent Irish politicans went to DC on June 28th, "ILIR chairman, Niall O'Dowd, also criticized Rep. King. Meetings with 87 legislators had been arranged in advance of the morning's lobbying effort, he said. The only one who hadn't turned up, he said, was Congressman King."
King's new take on legalizing the Irish is far from where he was before. King says now "If it's wrong for a Muslim to be living illegally on Atlantic Avenue, you can't make a distinction between that and an Irish person."
In the past, King fully supported and did all he could to help illegal Irish immigrants. But we all know he is willing to throw anyone under the bus to help himself.
Kelly Fincham, director of ILIR tells the Rockland Journal News "There's still room for him to be a friend of the Irish,"
He will be a friend of the Irish again when he needs them politically.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
If Ann Coulter Thinks You're Nuts....
From mAnn Coulter's website...
"Meanwhile, the one congressman who has called for any sort of criminal investigation is being treated like a nut. Don't get me wrong: Congressman Peter King is nuttier than squirrel droppings — but he's right on this"
"Meanwhile, the one congressman who has called for any sort of criminal investigation is being treated like a nut. Don't get me wrong: Congressman Peter King is nuttier than squirrel droppings — but he's right on this"
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Letters to the Editor Round-Up
From the NY Daily News June 28th...
Let freedom ring...
Lindenhurst, L.I.: It's timely that Rep. Pete King would attack and prosecute the freedom of the press, even as Americans prepare to celebrate those same freedoms for the July 4 holiday.
Susan Davniero
From Newsday a back-handed smack at King on June 23rd....
Fireworks where?
Recently, I've read about and seen several instances of large quantities of fireworks being brought to Long Island in vehicles from out of state, with the arrests being made by Long Island police. To get to Long Island from out of state, isn't it necessary to use a bridge or a tunnel? And aren't bridges and tunnels supposedly prime spots for terrorists to strike?
I feel secure that we're "keeping the terrorists under wraps" in Iraq, and building a wall to keep them from flooding in via Mexico. Maybe in its spare time (after cutting back on defense spending for New York) the administration in Washington, or someone like Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), will take notice.
Keith Alan Durkin
Glen Cove
Newsday June 30th...
Read the paper
As a constituent in Rep. Peter King's (R-Seaford) district, I was embarrassed to hear that he's urging the Bush administration to sue The New York Times for national security breaches ["King seeks federal probe of NY Times," News, June 26]. Rather than suing the paper, might I suggest he try reading it to learn some things about legality and his favorite administration's breaches.
Jay Lustgarten
North Bellmore
Newsday July 1st....
What's up with Rep. Peter King? Not content with his self-imposed title of "Bush's man in Congress," he seems to be seeking recognition as a latter-day Joseph McCarthy, clanging the disloyalty alarm at all who question the wisdom of his hero's dubious policies. Or is he merely trying to get as much free publicity as he can in this election year?
Elizabeth Levenson
Freeport
Newsday July 2nd...
Objecting to King's duplicity
Simply put, Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is a hypocrite. He supports a program of dubious legal backing and calls The New York Times "treasonous" for exposing the program for tracking money transfers ["King seeks federal probe of NY Times," News, June 26].
But rewind a year, and the same Peter King had no problem with the Bush administration exposing the name of an undercover CIA agent. CIA agent Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, was working on searching for rogue weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, which is vital to our national security. We will never know how many sources died and how much information was lost. We don't need people like King in Congress.
North Massapequa
Newsday July 3rd...
Peter King is failing NY
It's interesting to see Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) telling Americans what they are entitled to know about our government's efforts to track money transfers around the world ["King seeks federal probe of NY Times," News, June 26]. One would think that King would be keeping a low profile, given his total failure in securing New York's federal anti-terror funding, all the more galling given that he is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
King has now removed any speck of a reason to continue representing the people of New York. Maybe instead of thanking God every night that George W. Bush is president, he should call the White House every night and ask his heavenly president why New York has had its funds cut by 40 percent.
Jason Weinstock
Atlantic Beach
From Seattle Post-Intelligencer June 30th...
Administration has its own brand of 'outing'
So Rep. Peter King wants to charge The New York Times with treason for informing the public that our government has been checking thousands of Americans' bank accounts. Never mind the terrorists already knew of this program and switched to other ways of delivering funds to their causes.
I haven't heard King call Karl Rove treasonous for "outing" a CIA operative to two journalists (which he admitted doing). Isn't that defined as treason under the law? Hasn't this "outing" put many more CIA operatives in danger in time of war? Hasn't this given aid to our enemy? Where is the balance when a top Bush adviser (salary paid by taxpayers) gets away with this, but when The New York Times prints something that is common knowledge it is accused of treason?
It never stops with the Bush administration. Leak what we want you to leak for our political purposes and you won't be held accountable but leak what we don't want the American public to know and you are helping the enemy, hurting national security, yada, yada, yada.
The frightening part of this is some Americans actually believe the Bush spin.
Lola Falstad
Seattle
San Fransisco Chronicle June 28th...
'Treason against tyranny is no vice'
House homeland security committee Chairman Peter King called the New York Times' reports on two secret surveillance programs "treason." It is revealing that the cause of this treason are the views of his political opponents. Terrorism is a legitimate threat, but it is not the only threat.
When a closed government acts in a secret and unrestrained manner against its citizenry, whatever its professed goals, it creates the appearance of tyranny, and is of great public interest to scrutinize. This scrutiny can only be called treasonous if tyranny has indeed returned to our shores.
I would remind Rep. King and his supporters that long before this war on terrorism, the American and French founders initiated the much bigger war against tyranny. This war was not ended with the defeat of the monarch. Our founders warned constantly of the enduring and seductive power of tyranny, particularly tyranny in the pursuit of a noble goal.
Tyranny is seductive because it is always the shortest path to that goal. But support of tyranny, even to achieve noble results, is anti-American. According to our founders, treason against tyranny is no vice. We must not cut and run in the war against tyranny.
ERIC CRIPE
Pacifica
From Editor and Publisher June 28th
Someone should ask Rep. King [and the GOP] if it was criminal to plant lies in the New York Times while lying their way to a criminal war. Why isn’t Rep. King railing against the bribers and profiteers obscenely grabbing money that could be used in New York for their protection services. Illegal is illegal whether by government or citizens. The New York Times should be commended. The administration has botched everything about this unnecessary war from start to present.
Robert N. Horey
Amherst, Ohio
Let freedom ring...
Lindenhurst, L.I.: It's timely that Rep. Pete King would attack and prosecute the freedom of the press, even as Americans prepare to celebrate those same freedoms for the July 4 holiday.
Susan Davniero
From Newsday a back-handed smack at King on June 23rd....
Fireworks where?
Recently, I've read about and seen several instances of large quantities of fireworks being brought to Long Island in vehicles from out of state, with the arrests being made by Long Island police. To get to Long Island from out of state, isn't it necessary to use a bridge or a tunnel? And aren't bridges and tunnels supposedly prime spots for terrorists to strike?
I feel secure that we're "keeping the terrorists under wraps" in Iraq, and building a wall to keep them from flooding in via Mexico. Maybe in its spare time (after cutting back on defense spending for New York) the administration in Washington, or someone like Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), will take notice.
Keith Alan Durkin
Glen Cove
Newsday June 30th...
Read the paper
As a constituent in Rep. Peter King's (R-Seaford) district, I was embarrassed to hear that he's urging the Bush administration to sue The New York Times for national security breaches ["King seeks federal probe of NY Times," News, June 26]. Rather than suing the paper, might I suggest he try reading it to learn some things about legality and his favorite administration's breaches.
Jay Lustgarten
North Bellmore
Newsday July 1st....
What's up with Rep. Peter King? Not content with his self-imposed title of "Bush's man in Congress," he seems to be seeking recognition as a latter-day Joseph McCarthy, clanging the disloyalty alarm at all who question the wisdom of his hero's dubious policies. Or is he merely trying to get as much free publicity as he can in this election year?
Elizabeth Levenson
Freeport
Newsday July 2nd...
Objecting to King's duplicity
Simply put, Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is a hypocrite. He supports a program of dubious legal backing and calls The New York Times "treasonous" for exposing the program for tracking money transfers ["King seeks federal probe of NY Times," News, June 26].
But rewind a year, and the same Peter King had no problem with the Bush administration exposing the name of an undercover CIA agent. CIA agent Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, was working on searching for rogue weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, which is vital to our national security. We will never know how many sources died and how much information was lost. We don't need people like King in Congress.
North Massapequa
Newsday July 3rd...
Peter King is failing NY
It's interesting to see Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) telling Americans what they are entitled to know about our government's efforts to track money transfers around the world ["King seeks federal probe of NY Times," News, June 26]. One would think that King would be keeping a low profile, given his total failure in securing New York's federal anti-terror funding, all the more galling given that he is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
King has now removed any speck of a reason to continue representing the people of New York. Maybe instead of thanking God every night that George W. Bush is president, he should call the White House every night and ask his heavenly president why New York has had its funds cut by 40 percent.
Jason Weinstock
Atlantic Beach
From Seattle Post-Intelligencer June 30th...
Administration has its own brand of 'outing'
So Rep. Peter King wants to charge The New York Times with treason for informing the public that our government has been checking thousands of Americans' bank accounts. Never mind the terrorists already knew of this program and switched to other ways of delivering funds to their causes.
I haven't heard King call Karl Rove treasonous for "outing" a CIA operative to two journalists (which he admitted doing). Isn't that defined as treason under the law? Hasn't this "outing" put many more CIA operatives in danger in time of war? Hasn't this given aid to our enemy? Where is the balance when a top Bush adviser (salary paid by taxpayers) gets away with this, but when The New York Times prints something that is common knowledge it is accused of treason?
It never stops with the Bush administration. Leak what we want you to leak for our political purposes and you won't be held accountable but leak what we don't want the American public to know and you are helping the enemy, hurting national security, yada, yada, yada.
The frightening part of this is some Americans actually believe the Bush spin.
Lola Falstad
Seattle
San Fransisco Chronicle June 28th...
'Treason against tyranny is no vice'
House homeland security committee Chairman Peter King called the New York Times' reports on two secret surveillance programs "treason." It is revealing that the cause of this treason are the views of his political opponents. Terrorism is a legitimate threat, but it is not the only threat.
When a closed government acts in a secret and unrestrained manner against its citizenry, whatever its professed goals, it creates the appearance of tyranny, and is of great public interest to scrutinize. This scrutiny can only be called treasonous if tyranny has indeed returned to our shores.
I would remind Rep. King and his supporters that long before this war on terrorism, the American and French founders initiated the much bigger war against tyranny. This war was not ended with the defeat of the monarch. Our founders warned constantly of the enduring and seductive power of tyranny, particularly tyranny in the pursuit of a noble goal.
Tyranny is seductive because it is always the shortest path to that goal. But support of tyranny, even to achieve noble results, is anti-American. According to our founders, treason against tyranny is no vice. We must not cut and run in the war against tyranny.
ERIC CRIPE
Pacifica
From Editor and Publisher June 28th
Someone should ask Rep. King [and the GOP] if it was criminal to plant lies in the New York Times while lying their way to a criminal war. Why isn’t Rep. King railing against the bribers and profiteers obscenely grabbing money that could be used in New York for their protection services. Illegal is illegal whether by government or citizens. The New York Times should be commended. The administration has botched everything about this unnecessary war from start to present.
Robert N. Horey
Amherst, Ohio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
